Gratitude in Greens and Blues

Understanding Biotic Regulation

The challenge of addressing climate change is extremely complex. Even reducing emissions from energy use—as deploying more nuclear will help us to do—doesn't ensure climate stability for future generations. Fortunately, there are things we can do now to better protect our current and future climate and, in appreciation of our investors, advisors and supporters, we are donating to a group whose insights around "biotic regulation" can make a big difference in how humanity fares.

It turns out that forests play a critical and pro-active role in climate change dynamics. Forests, and especially old-growth rainforests, can help to reduce the impacts of our planet's warming. The mounting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are adding tremendous amounts of heat forcing: that is certain. What is less certain is how severely we'll feel those impacts. With healthy forests, we're much better off.

Emerging from the work of a group of atmospheric physicists, ecophysiologists, and biologists, is an awareness that, weather is not uniform and extreme weather events aren't being distributed equally. Forests, rather than being simply passive stores of carbon, are active participants in controlling weather, particularly the wind and hydrologic cycles. This means, where there are forests, the weather will be more regular, more temperature controlled and more normal.

How do trees and forests do this? They leverage physics, chemistry and their own biology to regulate weather. Through spreading canopies and networks of roots, trees collaborate in keeping the land cool and moist. This cooler air can generate cloud cover, which in turn generates rain and limits the penetration of sunlight, limiting heating impacts and droughts.

Trees can also use their ability to transpire—release moisture from leaves—to help increase the level of humidity in their vicinity, which can increase the air's moisture content and actually hasten rainfall. Clouds in turn reflect the sun's radiation back out into space, reducing heating in their areas despite the higher concentrations of CO2.

Forests, we have learned, have evolved on the planet for millions of years and they have adapted by being able to moderate their own climate. Trees use a number of physical mechanisms—rising warm air, denser cool air and the effects of condensation, to influence winds to suck moist dense cooler air from the seas onto the land and blow warmer air out to sea. Forests are not passive plants: rather, they can act as a massive biologic organism that can actually impact the physics in their environment to trigger rain. Not only is this good for them—giving them the fresh water they need—it is also vital to humanity.

Dr. Anastassia Makarieva, author of the Biotic Regulation substack, frequently discusses this complex blend of physical, chemical and biologic forces that form what she describes as a "biotic pump" that moves water from the ocean to the land. She has argued persuasively that forests play an active role. Further, that thinking that the primary value of forests is in their use as a store of carbon, is failing to recognize their vital function as a force that literally drives a large portion of the hydrological cycles of the planet. Dr. Makarieva’s writing helps readers recognize the problem of focusing climate efforts exclusively on the issue of carbon emissions and not paying attention to the proactive role of forests as a moderator of extreme weather and protecting them . . . from being actively leveled.

As important as nuclear power is to humanity's ability to reduce emissions, preserving forests is equally important as a way to better prevent extreme heating effects from causing damange to vital ecosystems and human systems. Protecting our natural forests and especially rainforests is key to lengthening the runway for maintaining cooler temperatures and ensuring there is continued rain—even as emissions drive higher global temperatures. Therefore, in addition to our usual year-end support of non-profit groups protecting our nuclear power assets (blue), this year we are donating to the Biotic Pump Greening Group (green), which is working to increase our understanding of the role that forests play in protecting their own ecosystems.

Learn more below:

BIOTIC PUMP GREENING GROUP

About

The Biotic Pump Greening Group Institute is a Brazilian-based non-profit scientific, technological, and innovation organization focused on promoting a paradigm shift in combating Climate Change, ecological restoration, and reforestation. Our core mission is to advance the study of the Biotic Pump Theory and develop innovative practices for ecosystem protection, contributing to the defense and preservation of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development. To achieve this, we support scientific research, design restoration projects, organize educational events, and foster scientific and political activism.

For more information, you can reach out to Carlos Nobre Camargo or Dr. Anatassia Makarieva. If you'd like an introduction, we'd be happy to make that.

Instituto BPGG - Biotic Pump Greening Group:

CNPJ: 59.958.061/0001‑09
Avenida Alfredo Ignacio Nogueira Penido, 335, Sala 706
São José dos Campos – SP
CEP: 12.246‑000
Banking information:

BRADESCO Bank Brazil
Swift: BBDEBRSP
Instituto BPGG - CNPJ 59958061/0001-09
Branch: 06012
Account: 000018678
Iban: BR78.6074.6948.0601.2000.0186.783C.1

Other Groups Working to Protect Rainforests

1. Restore established by Michael Kellett, which collaborated with the Biotic Pump team on organizing an "Embracing Nature's Complexity" conference in Munich in 2024.

2. Mongabay founded by Rhett Ayers Butler, one of the leading providers of ecological journalism, reporting on the state of forests, the often nefarious destruction being wrought on rainforests by corporations and the efforts and challenges of those who seek to protect them. Mongabay was the first big environmental news outlet that covered the biotic pump story, initially back in 2012, with more recent follow ups.

3. Amazon Watch, a 30-year old 501(c) organization, works together with and in support of the Amazon's Indigenous Peoples and allies calling for the Amazon to be free of oil, gas, mining, and all extraction and for the U.N. and Amazonian governments to protect the Amazon from deforestation for palm production or other destructive activities.

Groups We Support Working to Protect Nuclear

1. Mothers for Nuclear: Was started on Earth Day in 2016 by two moms who want to protect their children’s future on this planet. They were initially skeptical of nuclear, but through many years of questioning and working at California’s last remaining nuclear plant, they gradually changed their minds. Now they support nuclear as our largest and most hopeful source of clean energy, vital to addressing some of our world’s biggest challenges: climate change, air pollution, and energy poverty. Now, we have an organized way to share our stories and begin a dialogue with others who want to protect nature for future generations.

2. Stand Up for Nuclear: Works to advance nuclear energy worldwide by activating leaders, driving action, and fostering informed public engagement. Since 2019, Stand Up for Nuclear has grown the international movement, uniting citizens and organizations to champion nuclear energy as a key to securing our clean, abundant energy future. They strive to create a future where nuclear energy is embraced as a reliable and sustainable solution for a low-carbon world.

3. Californians for Green Nuclear Power: Is dedicated to promoting the peaceful use of safe, carbon-free nuclear power, and to keeping Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant open, so it can continue in its important role of generating clean energy for the benefit of California’s economy.

July 17, 2025

The Trillion-Dollar Price Tag of Climate Inaction

Climate Damage Is Already an Economic Line Item—Just Not One We Recognize

By Ian Brusewitz and Valerie Gardner

Over just the past 12 months, the US has spent nearly $1 trillion on climate-related disaster recovery and infrastructure damage. That’s 3% of GDP — money that could have gone toward innovation, productivity, benefits, or debt reduction. Instead, it's being rerouted into extreme weather damage cleanup, reconstruction, and emergency response. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, this surge in climate-related spending has effectively become a "stealth tariff" on Americans: a hidden cost that shows up not as a line item, but in the form of higher prices, larger insurance premiums, and government spending that collectively erode household budgets and wealth without being labeled for what it is. The conversation around climate change often centers on long-term risk — but the reality is that US citizens are already paying an average of almost $3,000 annually towards covering the costs of our worsening climate, even if these costs are not specifically identified as such.

This economic burden isn’t theoretical — it’s already bleeding into the real economy in visible, destabilizing ways. Climate-related costs are no longer confined to isolated events or specific regions. Climate change is indifferent to boundaries, and its financial impacts are bleeding into housing markets, food systems, labor dynamics, consumer prices, and state and federal budgets. As these disruptions grow more frequent and severe, as last evidenced by the devastating fires in Los Angeles and deadly flash floods in Texas — no sector, geography, demographic, or business is immune. This suggests that as the capital allocations necessary for climate recovery grow, the environmental risks bleed increasingly into financial risks. Not only are our physical assets vulnerable, but so are our financial assets. This then raises the stakes of where and how to invest.

Insurance and Public Safety Nets Are Starting to Fray

As the economic footprint of climate disruption expands, the institutions we’ve historically relied on to manage risk are showing cracks. Insurance is becoming a visible point of failure in that equation. In 2024, Hurricane Helene hit Florida as the strongest storm ever recorded in the state’s Panhandle. Days later, Hurricane Milton followed. Combined, the two storms caused $113 billion in damage. Then came the devastating California wildfires in January 2025, burning through L.A. suburbs, which added another $65 billion to the total. The LA Times has since estimated total fire damage could exceed $250 billion, making it one of the costliest fire seasons in U.S. history. And, most recently, the devastating Texas floods — with damage estimated at upward of $22 billion — don't even account for the tragic loss of life from these events.

Historically, the federal government covered about one-third of climate-related disaster costs. That share has since dropped to around 2%, leaving municipalities and states to issue debt or delay recovery projects, and shifting more of the burden onto insurers and property owners. In 2023, insurers covered approximately 70% of the $114 billion in U.S. climate-related losses, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Because of rising costs, insurance premiums have doubled since 2017, including a 22% spike in 2023 alone. These increases aren’t reflected in the Consumer Price Index, which means that what we’re calling "inflation" may actually be something distinctly different. The question we can ask is whether or not people would make different choices if these embedded costs were more clearly labeled as a "Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium" or something similar. This lack of clarity and failure to accurately attribute these rising costs to what we think of as cheap fossil fuels means that we understate the full costs and consequences of our use of these fuels.

The "Tragedy of the Horizons" Issue

In 2015, former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney coined the phrase "Tragedy of the Horizons" to describe the problem that results from the fact that people want what's cheap for them today and are unwilling to pay more for something even if it is better for them or their children in the future. The same problem exists at every level in the investment world: financial actors operate on quarterly cycles, while climate impacts unfold over years or decades. This mismatch between how we invest today versus what we need for tomorrow means markets routinely discount the long-term consequences of inaction, prioritizing short-term returns over long-term stability, even when instability is well predicted. The result of this short-term orientation is a structural disconnect that undercuts our ability to invest in climate action and solutions, so as to limit the long-term damage we will inevitably have to pay for, before it gets really bad.

A decade later, this structural blind spot surrounding investing in climate solutions persists. At a recent Financial Stability Board meeting, a U.S. Treasury official dismissed climate concerns unless they posed an "imminent" financial risk. But that logic depends upon people not recognizing the growing annual Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium that they are already paying. In addition to revealing an utter failure to understand the real-world progression of climate impacts and looming tipping points, which are beyond "imminent," they are being expressed with disasters everywhere, even if these costs are economically masked and not clearly identified as climate costs. This disconnect is one of the clearest reasons capital hasn’t shifted meaningfully towards investing in the technologies that can enable the energy transition to the extent that we should. So long as people don't realize how expensive climate inaction actually is, human nature tragically rewards inertia, which means that both the damage done in the interim and the costs of solving climate change will continue to rise.

We’re Still Underestimating the Real Costs

Surveys from Yale’s Climate Change in the American Mind series show rising concern among Americans about climate change. Yet, far fewer people connect climate change directly to the rising costs of food, insurance, consumer products, or energy prices. This perception gap matters. When the public doesn’t see their rising costs as climate-driven, there’s less support for regional climate mitigation efforts, long-term adaptation investments, or even innovative clean energy investments that can help accelerate the energy transition, reduce the impacts of future extreme weather events, a hedge the rising climate risks to their overall portfolio.

While consumer awareness lags, markets have begun to price in climate risks. Bloomberg tracks a basket of 100 companies in insurance, infrastructure, and disaster response that have outperformed the S&P 500 by 7% annually. Capital is adapting faster than federal policy — and faster than public awareness. This divergence captures a core tension. While markets have begun reallocating capital toward climate adaptation — outpacing both federal policy and public awareness — the broader system still treats climate disruption as a distant risk, even though the costs are already embedded in household budgets increasingly squeezed by insurance premiums, rising costs, and disaster recovery bills not covered by insurance or the government. Climate impacts and costs are no longer theoretical or negligible. They are already large, compounding, and for many households, causing significant budgetary pain. And yet, despite the mounting data, policy and public sentiment lag. Yet, there is very little recognition of how these climate costs are escalating or communication to the public about the real price of our government's climate ignorance and inaction.

A Smarter Way Forward

The trillion-dollar annual cost of climate inaction isn’t a projection — it’s already here. It reflects not just extreme weather, but the fallout from underbuilt systems and delayed clean energy investment. We haven’t invested adequately in low-carbon technologies that can reduce and eliminate carbon emissions at scale and possibly even begin to repair the damage that has already been done to the climate. Investments lagged because investors doubted the need for these technologies as well as their commercial viability. Clean energy technologies that were seen as more expensive than fossil fuels were deemed less competitive in today's market and hence, not a good investment. But if we begin to factor in today's Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium plus the growing costs of not having those technologies — namely the ever-escalating costs of climate damage — then these clean energy solutions really start to seem attractive.

This is where next-generation nuclear becomes decisively appealing. Not only does it deliver clean, dense, reliable, and dispatchable power — but it generates power (and so earns money) without relying on the weather or being vulnerable to it, which is a growing risk to renewables projects reliant on the weather cooperating. As both a hedge against the systemic economic risks of climate disruption and as a source of long-term returns and near-term risk reduction, nuclear power offers a uniquely strategic return. If the Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium is now a recurring cost, the only rational move is to invest in the most scalable solutions that cut exposure to climate risk, preserve economic value, and secure a livable future.

References:

Bloomberg, “US Spending on Climate Damage Nears $1 Trillion Per Year,” by Eric Roston, June 17, 2025.

Bloomberg, “Carney’s Risk Warning Reverberates as Global Regulators Disagree Over Climate,” by Alastair Marsh, June 19, 2025.

Congressional Budget Office, “Federal Insurance and Disaster Spending”, September 2023.

Los Angeles Times, “Estimated Cost of Fire Damage Balloons to More Than $250 Billion”, by Sammy Roth, January 24, 2025.

MSN, “Texas Flood Damage to Homes May Cost Up to $22B”, by Michael Walrath, May 2025.

Nature, “Warming Accelerates Global Drought Severity,” by Solomon H. Gebrechorkos et al., June 4, 2025.

NOAA, “Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters”, 2024 Report.

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, “Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes”, Fall 2024.

June 17, 2025

US Damage from Extreme Climate Events Nears $1 Trillion ()

Bloomberg reports that the US has spent nearly $1 trillion on damage recovery related to climate change for the 12 months ending May 1, 2025.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate Costs, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Extreme weather, Global emissions, LINKS, Solving climate

May 25, 2025

Climate anomalies, ecologic disasters and climate uncertainties: All point to climate being worse than projected

Forest fires

Climate tipping effects may be kicking in

For those tracking the state of the climate, the report published by the BBC showing that tropical forests were being destroyed at the fastest recorded rate over the last year, was frightening, with the prospect of total forest dieback and "savannisation" of these areas is a growing risk.

Compounding the loss of old-growth tropical forests in 2024 (estimated to have covered an area as large as Ireland) and the release of their carbon stores, is the loss of the moisture and climate systems maintained by those forest ecosystems, which previously provided localized cooling effects, produced cloud cover and contributed to the atmospheric moisture necessary for rain. These had also helped to brighten the earth, thereby reflecting more of the sunlight that otherwise would cause heating. This moisture and water cycle activity gets destroyed along with the trees, plants and animal life. This climatic loss to broad areas may be having more of a negative feedback effective on the planet's overall warming than has previously been recognized.

Global Surface Temperature Change (published 2/3/25)

This news add yet more data to the alarming report published in February by Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Pushker Kharecha and a team of sixteen other climate scientists plainly titled "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed? In it, Dr. Hansen's team explains that global temperatures have leaped up more than a half degree (0.7°F or 0.4°C) over the last 2 years, with a total average temperature rise of +1.6°C relative to the temperature at the beginning of last century (the 1880-1920 average). This reflects a temperature rise over the +1.5°C (or 2.7°F) level that we set as our goal for maximum increase. As of the last year, we've already exceeded that level.

These increases have, according to Hansen, baffled Earth scientists, as the increase's magnitude was literally off the charts. There were multiple explanations presented as to what could have caused such a big increase. Declining aerosol pollution was seen as a key contributor, by reducing nuclei that aided cloud formation and thus reflection of sunlight, thereby effectively darkening earth and allowing more heat to be absorbed. These are very troubling and portentious changes that may, in fact, show that feedback effects are already accelerating the heating impacts of our CO2 emissions, such that they no longer follow a direct relationship.

Dr. Hansen's report received considerable criticism both because it departed scientifically from the mainstream's more conservative consensus of a lower rate of warming and climate "sensitivity," as determined by the IPCC, and because it called for "a complement to the IPCC approach" to "avoid handing young people a dire situation that is out of their control." In a response to some of that criticism, Drs. Hansen and Karecha decried the ad hoc opinions, ad hominem attacks and sense that the media has gravitated towards reporting the opinions of just a small handful of scientists, rather than covering the total community and range of analyses, including their own.

Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, responded to this debate with a substack post titled "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." In it she agreed with Drs. Hansen and Karecha that many scientists were understating the degree of climate forcing but also shared her sense that many of the climate models in use, including Dr. Hansen's, erroneously ignored the major role of the biosphere in the climate destabilization that we are now experiencing. Which may, she argued, partially explain why none of the models predicted the heat anomaly of the 2023 - 2024 time period. Dr. Makarieva writes:

Why is this [i.e. accurate climate models] so important? Unless external causes of this recent temperature anomaly are identified, we may be dealing with a self-reinforcing process — for example, of reduced cloud cover causing more warming, this warming causing even less clouds and so forth until something truly ugly happens to our planet. But, if so, such a process could be started by many factors and does not necessarily need CO₂ to kick off. For example, deforestation-induced reduction of evapotranspiration in the Amazon is associated with extreme heat events. This alone could trigger the warming that could then self-amplify via cloud (or some other) feedbacks.

Whether or not we have permanent self-reinforcing amplification happening with the climate now is being debated, partially thanks to new voices like Dr. Makarieva's, entering the field. What is clear, however, is that the fewer clouds, aerosols, snow cover, sea ice and also more invisible sources of water vapor (such produced by tropical forests and other natural ecosystems) the darker the earth is and the more sunlight gets through and heats the ground, the oceans and the air. This heating further impacts existing vegetation, ice sheets, permafrost and bodies of water negatively, which then also contribute more CO2, more fires, and further darkening of earth's surface. Earth's climate has been in a state of equilibrium for eons. Given what is happening with the climate now, it appears that it is leaving that state of equilibrium.

According to some reports, the Earth has "dimmed" by 0.5% in the past 25 years. We've known this and scientists have been able to track decreases in sea ice at the poles, a major factor in global warming. We're now seeing the climate effects of reductions in aerosols (due to the shipping industry trying to clean up their act and emit less aerosols), and we're seeing reduced cloud cover. The bottom line is that even just looking at cloud feedbacks, the more the climate warms, the fewer the clouds. The fewer the clouds, the more the planet warms. This feedback loop is enough to take us into very dangerous territory. Which is yet another reason why we want to prevent the loss of tropical forests, not just because of the CO₂ impacts but because of the cloud and water vapor impacts. This feedback loop could explain why the rate of heating of the planet has increased beyond what was expected, even by scientists like Zeke Hausfather and James Hansen.

Dr. Hansen continues to urge immediate action and has proposed that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."

References:

BBC, Tropical forests destroyed at fastest recorded rate last year, by Mark Poynting and Esme Stallard, May 20, 2025.

Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?, published in Taylor & Francis, February 3, 2025 by James E. Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, George Tselioudis, Joseph Kelly, Susanne E. Bauer, Reto Ruedy, Eunbi Jeong, Qinjian Jin, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Mark R. Schoeberl, Karina von Schuckmann, Joshua Amponsem, Junji Cao, Anton Keskinen, Jing Li, and Anni Pokela

Biotic Regulation and Biotic Pump Substack, "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." by Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, May 19, 2025.

May 8, 2025

Help Mom go Nuclear on Mother’s Day

She wants what's best for you . . .

Mother polar bear with cubs Moms protect their children. For better or worse, she does what she thinks best, given her means. She sees to our needs, supports us when we struggle and helps us develop into self-reliant adults, often at great personal sacrifice.

But we are now at a critical junction in human history, perhaps one of the most crucial moments that will determine our trajectory. Our moms, for all their superpowers, may not fully recognize the new threat we face—because it is entirely invisible.

CO₂, the waste emission created by our growing energy usage, is both colorless and odorless. Yet, it is impacting our future. Unlike with most types of toxic emissions that contribute to smog, moms can't see that the emissions from powering things we love—cars, boats, planes, televisions, computers, refridgerators, washing machines, phones, the Internet, websites and especially our homes—has filled our atmosphere with large molecules that serve to turn the heat up on the planet.

Can moms adapt to defending us from the risks posed by climate change?

Mother goose For eons, moms have been perfectly evolved to meet their primary job qualifications: to provide for her child's physical and psychological safety. For as long as we have had recorded history, moms' love has helped populations thrive. But things have changed dramatically. Humanity, empowered with technologies unimaginable mere decades ago, are causing profound changes to our climate and ecosystems for the worse. Weather patterns are changing. Days are hotter and there are more of them. Trees flower earlier in the season. There is less and less rain, more severe droughts and forest fires. Areas that could once be farmed, can no longer grow crops. Fish populations that fed millions have declined. Bees, bats and insects are disappearing. Hurricanes and tornadoes arrive more frequently and fiercely. How can moms defend their children from a heating planet and all of its related effects? The job of protecting children from these climate threats is not straight-forward and may seem quite impossible, yet there are important things moms can and should do.

Focus on root causes and support an effective energy transition.

Many moms are already concerned about climate and fighting back. She may be planting trees, using less paper, fussing to close lights and turning down the heat. She's also probably recycling, refusing plastic straws and plastic bags and composting. Moms with excess resources are likely donating to stem deforestation, habitat loss and species extinction. She may even opt to invest in ESG and impact-focused funds. While laudable, none of these activities directly target the cause of the problem and so are not a good use of moms' time, talents or resources.

Mom, like the rest of us, must focus on the root cause of climate change. Which is the CO₂ emissions from humanity's collective burning of over 100 million gallons of oil per day, 25 million tons of coal and a comparable amount of natural gas each day. It is these daily energy choices that generate over 100 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions waste daily and over 40 billion tonnes annually—an enormous amount that goes almost entirely into the atmosphere, which further heats the planet. This is the real problem and the only way to lessen the threat we're facing is to transition away from carbon-emitting fossil fuels to other types of energy that don't emit CO₂.

Tripling nuclear pledge cop28 The good news: Over 200 countries agreed that transitioning away from fossil fuels is a global imperative. In late 2023, world leaders met in Abu Dhabi, Dubai at COP 28 and specifically agreed on this. It won't surprise Mom at all that it took all 28 of these week-long annual "Conference of the Parties" gatherings to arrive at this generic agreement. It was every bit as difficult as getting a child to agree to clean up his room. But they got it done at last. Some thirty countries committed to triple the amount of nuclear they use. Others committed to increasing their wind and solar. As hard as it was to arrive at this agreement, there's still much disagreement over how to effect this transition and over what period of time.

The bad news: While there's been considerable progress building out wind and solar, these technologies haven't lived up to the hype that they can solve the problem. Everyone hoped they would and, yes, we love getting free energy from the sun and the wind. Sadly, the actual technologies required to capture and convert that natural energy into power are neither free nor efficient. In the "you get what you pay for" department, renewables are cheap but so unreliable that even where they've been fully built out, we still need to burn fossil fuels to meet the 24/7 level of energy demanded by customers. It turns out that our near constant energy demand doesn't pair well with highly intermittent sources like wind and solar. Adding them to the grid has increased costs to end users largely because of the need for significant further expenditures on peaker gas plants and large batteries to try to firm up their very low generation capacity.

What other clean energy options are there?

There aren't many, which is why we need better options. And we need them urgently. Among the options we have are hydro power, geothermal power and nuclear power. Hydro and geothermal power are currently limited to specific geographies, most of which areas are already fully exploited. Traditional grid-scale nuclear is pretty darn good (despite its reputation) but has historically come in a "one-size-fits-all" configuration that can cost billions and take a decade or more to build. Against this backdrop, there's more good news.

Our world in data energy graphic

Entrepreneurs are working to innovate to make nuclear power smaller, modular and safer. And, best of all, these new advanced designs are on the verge of being commercialized, so adding exciting new energy options that can directly replace smaller coal and gas plants. Meanwhile, they are rapidly becoming the most compelling medium-term solution to our energy problems. Just recently, Google, Amazon, Dow Chemical, Nucor and other large companies have begun to place orders for power from advanced nuclear because they see it as helping them meet both their energy growth and decarbonization goals.

Tech companies have but will Moms go Nuclear to protect their children?

Mothers for peace For most of our lives, our moms opposed nuclear power. They feared nuclear bombs and believed that nuclear power plants posed similar risks. The idea that a melt-down accident at a nuclear power plant could explode and contaminate huge swaths of land seemed like an existential threat that had moms everywhere up in arms. Accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima seemed only to prove them right. Protesting moms did their thing and eventually succeeded in preventing new nuclear power plants from being built for most of the last 40 years. At the time, with their then limited understanding of the risks, this seemed like the right thing to do, so it is easy to understand the rationale. But was it?

Kennedy and weinberg Now, more than 40 years later, we actually have a much better understanding. And it turns out it was a huge mistake. Had the original plans developed by Presidents Eisenhower and, later, John F. Kennedy to build out a fleet of nuclear power plants to meet all US energy needs succeeded, we would not have a climate catastrophe on our hands. But, because of public opposition, nuclear grew only to be 20% of our electricity needs and then its growth was halted.

In its place, the fossil fuel industry was allowed to grow unchecked, vastly accelerating CO2 emissions and turning global warming into a full blown catastrophe. We've already seen 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) of confirmed warming and there much more to come, as more emissions are added to the existing molecular blanket trapping solar radiation and heating the planet. It is as bad for the health of our planet as it would be if your child had a fever of 102.7 that just continued rising.

While the worst impacts of our use of fossil fuels may still be a ways off, even the current level poses an existential risk to humanity. We are failing to meet our initial goal of reducing emissions by 50% by 2030, which is five years away and emissions have not declined at all. Not solving this problem by greatly reducing our level of emissions is causing tremendous psychological stress in younger generations. This is why moms everywhere need to act and fast. They need to show their children that they are doing what it takes, which requires thinking outside the box and being willing to do things we may not be comfortable with.

Next-generation nuclear is the disruptive, scalable solution we need.

Things seem bad right now. The Trump Administration is in denial about climate change and the very topic of climate change has become terribly polarized. Progressives want to end fossil fuel use but demand that we replace it with renewables, which clearly aren't up to the job. Conservatives are rightly worried about rising energy prices and energy reliability and love nuclear but they've shown little concern about addressing climate. While thsese differences cause political dysfunction, there is considerable bipartisan agreement about the need to accelerate advanced nuclear. Somehow, between climate doom and climate denial, both sides for vastly different reasons, agree on the importance of accelerating next-generation nuclear.

Gov newsom at diablo canyon This bipartisan support is not new It started with the Obama Administration, which set the stage to support nuclear innovation. Thereafter, the first Trump Administration signed several pieces of legislation passed by the Congress aimed at accelerating the commercialization of next-generation nuclear. Then, in the lead-up to the IRA, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act, which set up the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, with funding to help prevent the premature closure of nuclear power plants. Governor Newsom used these funds to help save Diablo Canyon. The IRA provided further support for nuclear by levelling the playing field and allowing nuclear power to qualify for the same clean energy tax benefits that wind and solar could. Biden also signed the ADVANCE Act, which accelerates the commercialization of nuclear with a series of reforms of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, its mission and its process.

In each instance, Congress supported efforts to accelerate the commercialization of next-generation with huge bipartisan majorities, and often just a few nay votes. This shows just how much attitudes have changed around nuclear energy, which has one of the lowest carbon intensities—so is a top solution to climate change—while at the same time, providing energy security, job creation and national security. At the moment, although the Trump Administration has shown no interest in supporting climate goals, the DOE recently re-issued a $900 million funding solicitation left over from the Biden era for advanced nuclear. Nuclear energy is the middle ground we need to solve climate.

Mom will likely be thrilled to support a true climate solution

Supporting the growth of advanced nuclear energy is the ideal pathway for those seeking to solve climate change. Next-gen nuclear is already in demand by tech hyperscalers and others seeking clean and reliable sources of energy. The innovations underway are working to make these new designs safer, cheaper and easier to deploy. The whole nuclear industry is hard at work increasing capacity factors, improving materials, fabricating safer fuels, making operations more efficient and training workers. This makes it the perfect time to invest into these ventures, so that new designs can finally get to market and energy buyers can begin to displace fossil fuels.

Maddy Hilly, a pregnant mom, pictured standing next to nuclear waste

A pregnant Maddy Hilly standing next to a dry cask storage tank holding nuclear waste.

So, for Mother's Day, help your mother get caught up with nuclear's incomparable safety record. Explain the many amazing benefits of nuclear. Show her that nuclear helps reduce ecologic impacts and cleans the air. Clarify why concerns about nuclear waste are a political red herring, since nuclear's waste is already safely stored on site—as shown by Maddy Hilly at the INL—hurting no one and definitely not causing climate change, in stark contrast to fossil fuel waste, which pollutes the air, contributes to millions of premature deaths annually and causes our slow-moving global climate disaster.

Help your Mom go Nuclear on Mother's Day

Help mom become one of the growing numbers of women supporting nuclear. Introduce her to groups like Mothers for Nuclear, and show her how working mothers have launched pronuclear non-profits and permeated the nuclear industry because of their concerns about climate change. It doesn't take a mom to recognize that fossil fuels are well past their "Sell by" dates and need to go! But before that transition can happen, there has to be a much better way to generate reliable energy. That's next-generation nuclear power and why it is so important to get these technologies to market as fast as possible.

Mom will appreciate learning about next-gen nuclear and the many ways that she can help, whether by joining or supporting an organization like Mothers for Nuclear, investing into this sector and funding the companies developing innovative solutions or just by talking to her friends about nuclear power—it will all help. Almost nothing else she can do will be as effective at the global scale. But helping next-generation nuclear succeed can have a direct future impact on reducing carbon emissions.

She already loves you forever. You can now help her do her job to protect your future.

Happy Mother's Day from the Nucleation team!

Elizabeth in vest Thank you for reading this. Love of our children and deep appreciation of what nuclear offers humanity is why we have worked to build the first venture fund that invest in advanced nuclear and deep decarbonization innovations. Nucleation's Fund I is in its fourth year and still accepting new accredited investors every quarter. We have made it easy and affordable. If you or your mom subscribe between Mother's Day and May 30th, 2025 and reference this Mother's Day post, we will send you your choice of a Nucleation Capital T-shirt, vest or baseball cap. Learn more and subscribe here.

Published by Valerie Gardner in Advanced Nuclear, Air pollution, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Energy abundance, Energy transition, Extreme weather, Fission, Fossil fuel mortality, Fossil fuels, NEWS, Nuclear innovation, Nucleation communications, Pro-nuclear campaign, Solving climate, US technological leadership

February 20, 2025

Global warming has accelerated and the news is not getting out: A Report from Dr. James Hansen

Global temperature leaped more than 0.4°C (0.7°F) during the past two years, the 12-month average peaking in August 2024 at +1.6°C relative to the temperature at the beginning of last century (the 1880-1920 average). Polar climate change has the greatest long-term effect on humanity, with impacts accelerated by the jump in global temperature. We find that polar ice melt and freshwater injection onto the North Atlantic Ocean exceed prior estimates and, because of accelerated global warming, the melt will increase. As a result, shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is likely within the next 20-30 years, unless actions are taken to reduce global warming – in contradiction to conclusions of IPCC. If AMOC is allowed to shut down, it will lock in major problems including sea level rise of several meters – thus, we describe AMOC shutdown as the “point of no return.”

Published by Valerie Gardner in Air pollution, Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Extreme weather, REPORTS, Scientific debate, Solving climate

February 27, 2024

Deviations from the abnormal to the freakish

David Gelles bravely titles his Climate Forward article in the New York Times, "Scientists are Freaking Our About Ocean Temperatures." It would have been every bit as accurate, but possibly less acceptable, if he had said scientists are freaking out about climate change or global warming rather than "ocean temperatures." But, since much of the warming that we're causing is being absorbed by the oceans, ocean temperatures are a proxy for global warming. They took a gob-smacking leap up this year, shifting the historic pattern of more gradual increases.

This astonishing leap follows a record hot January and one of the longest runs of record-breaking summer temperatures the world has ever seen (shown in the above chart in pale orange). As a function of this, ocean temperatures are now in unknown territory, as shown by the red line in the graph above, reflecting readings for 2024.

Scientists have hypotheses as to what might have caused such a dramatic shift. To understand some of what the world's top scientists are thinking, we recommend you read "Global warming in the pipeline," by James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, Leon Simons and other scientists, published in September 2023 by Oxford University Press, if you are capable of following deeply scientific, dense analysis. Alternatively, Dr. Hansen and his CSAS team sent a thank you memo to supporters in February, with something of a summary of the conclusion from the Pipeline paper. You can read this entire memo here, but we quote the following paragraph:

In Pipeline, among other things, we show that climate sensitivity is higher than IPCC’s best estimate and human-made aerosols are a larger climate forcing that is driving global warming acceleration. A stunning global change now underway is darkening of Earth (Fig. 1). Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) decreased since 2015 by an amount that has an effect on global temperature equivalent to a CO2 increase of more than 100 ppm. This darkening has doubled Earth’s energy imbalance and thrown into a cocked hat official claims about achieving climate targets. These facts make it more difficult, but not impossible, to secure a propitious climate for future generations.

Gelles also tries to answer the question of what's driving the heat. He writes: "Global warming, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, has been driving up global temperatures on land and in the sea for decades now. Over the past year, worldwide average temperatures were more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, higher than before the industrial age. New data from a variety of sources has led some climate scientists to suggest that global warming is accelerating." And since oceans absorb most of the added heat near the earth's surface, they have been steadily warming for years. Even so, data collected in the past year has been shocking to those who have been following the trends. It's pretty much "off the charts."

[Aside: The above graphic provides a powerful visualization of the acceleration of warming that is now happening. We appreciate that this news can be deeply disturbing on many levels, including because we've long been led to believe that it would take a lot longer for the severe heating effects of climate change to be felt. That may no longer be true, although clearly scientists don't fully know how all of the climate feedback loops work. We are deeply worried that we will see a year in which these super warm oceans turbo-charge the already record-breaking hurricane seasons that we've seen coming from the Atlantic in recent years. We post this information, so more people can realize just what unprecedented territory we are in. End Aside.]

THINGS YOU CAN DO

Should you be motivated to do more than you've done before to tackle climate, here's our list:

Review this listing of pronuclear nonprofits, influencers, artists and experts and support efforts to spread the word about the benefits of nuclear power.
Review Bank of America's analysts' report, "The Nuclear Necessity," to get ideas on public market investment options.
For managed fund offerings, we think Parnassus Investments represents the best of the ESG-focused sustainability public fund options we've seen.
Lastly, Nucleation offers a low-cost venture capital fund option, which, while higher risk, is one of the most impactful ways to help accelerate the commercialization of innovative solutions. We are clearly biased but, as Vinod Khosla has remarked about venture investing, “You only lose 1x your money if you fail, but if you succeed, you can make 100x.”

Read more at New York Times, "Scientists Are Freaking Out About Ocean Temperatures: "It's like an omen of the future," by David Gelles, Feb. 27, 2024.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Climate mayhem, Extreme weather, Future of Energy, LINKS, Nuclear innovation, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

February 15, 2024

Carbon Footprint Calculator

EPA's Carbon Footprint Calculator estimates an typical U.S. resident's footprint in three areas: home energy, transportation and waste. Everyone's carbon footprint is different depending on their location, habits, and personal choices. You can get a quick, rough estimate of your carbon footprint by using U.S. average values. They are provided (along with other useful information) in the "tool tips" throughout the calculator.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Air pollution, Carbon emissions, Carbon negative, Climate change, Climate Costs, Electrification, ENERGY TOOLS, Energy transition, Environmental support for nuclear, Extreme weather, Fossil fuel mortality, Fossil fuels, Global emissions, Government support, Macro Energy Systems, Politicians supporting nuclear, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

January 4, 2024

Dr. Hansen warning humanity to get its act together, deploy renewables and nuclear

Dr. James Hansen's year-end update contains an admonishment right in the title, "A Miracle Will Occur" Is Not Sensible Climate Policy." Those who have followed his work and his typically well-tempered writing will recognize this as a very strong indictment of what we've not done to date to address climate change. This is, for this mild-mannered scientist, the equivalent of "Hey Guys, Get your S _ _ T together!"

Dr. Hansen proceeds to call "bunk" on the assertions from both the COP 28 Chairman and the UN Secretary General who imply that the goal of keeping temperature rise to below 1.5°C is still feasible. According to Dr. Hansen, the already banked warming will take us beyond 2.0°C "if policy is limited to emission reductions and plausible CO2 removal." In other words, he makes it clear that this is now merely wishful thinking and does not reflect a realistic understanding of the way that emissions released create future warming, which he calls "Global Warming in the Pipeline" and describes in the linked paper.

The only realistic approach is to take true climate analysis that is informed by knowledge of the warming "forcing" effects and to use that to drive decisions about policy options. If we can possibly use the next several years to define and commence more effective policies and courses of action, then there is a modicum of a chance that we can still save the future for our young people. If this isn't a bomb of an alarm, it would be hard to say what else would be, especially because the IPCC has made it very clear that major ecosystems, starting with coral reefs and then, therefore, all marine life, will be threatened with substantial (90%) collapse by 1.5°C and with 100% by 2°C.

Unfortunately, climate science is complicated and most people don't have a good understanding of the "human-made forcings that are driving Earth's climate away from the relatively stable climate of the Holocene (approximately the past 10,000 years.)" Even if they could grasp the implications about climate science from the graphs that Dr. Hansen and his team provide, very few are even reading Hansen's work. These graphs are very scary but clearly they are not being used as the basis for policy discussions by either politicians, government agencies (like the EPA), or by leading environmental groups and that is likely the primary reason why many people are still arguing about renewables versus nuclear power, thinking they have a certain luxury of time, rather than saying "Renewables and nuclear, YES!"

For his part, Dr. Hansen doesn't make it as easy as he could for those with less expertise in climate science. He spends a lot of effort discussing two major climate forcings: greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols (fine airborne particles), which in fact have opposing forcings. But then goes into detail on many other related forcings. This level of detail may provide a more scientifically accurate picture of what is going on but it makes for much sparser readership. Clearly, there are many different kinds of feedback loops, including how the aerosols impact cloud formation, albedo effects and also the way the ocean absorbs a considerable amount of the warming that is happening to our climate. It's important that he understands these effects but it takes considerable sifting work to get to the point that what it all adds up to is that there is much more warming that has occurred than what we are actually now experiencing, so in fact, the effect of warming will be accelerate and we're now seeing this.

Even for those of us who finding climate science fascinating, this 14-page paper is incredibly dense and gets relatively badly bogged down with details on things like cloud forcings, albedo changes, reviewing differences between expected temperatures and real world measurements, catching up with a 40-year old mystery having to do with the last glacial maximum and describing the impacts of an "experiment" that occurred when the International Maritime Organization limited sulfur content in ship fuel and the variability introduced by El Nino and La Nina events. The bottom line of quite extensive discussion that few will wade through, is that global warming is now accelerating. This is very important but definitely buried. The key graphic of the whole paper depicts this acceleration.

On page 7, we finally get to the implications of global warming acceleration. As shown in the above graph, were the warming happening at a steady rate, we'd be on the green dotted line. Instead, we are veering off into the yellow zone of accelerated warming, which means that we'll "exceed the 1.5°C mark within the next few months and reach a level far above 1.5C by May 2024."

Hansen, while recognizing that there could be some up and down based upon El Nino and La Nina effects, believes that the baked in energy imbalance already "in the pipeline" means that it does not serve anybody's interests to "wait a decade to declare that the 1.5°C limit has been breached." In summary, Hansen argues that, "unless purposeful actions are taken to reduce our present extraordinary planetary energy imbalance," the 2°C global warming limit will also be breached.

By its very nature of having a delayed, baked-in response, human-made climate change makes this an intergenerational issue. What we have done in the past is already having consequences but what we do today and going forward will mostly impact the next generation for better or worse.

To his credit, Hansen dives yet again into Climate Policy, unlike most other scientists. This has been long been a huge source of frustration for him and you can almost see him stomping on his own hat, in his anger and impatience with the political processes that have thwarted action. First he reviews just what makes solving cilmate extra hard, starting with the fact that the principal source of GHGs is fossil fuels, which are in his words "extremely beneficial to humanity." They have raised starndards of living worldwide and still provide 80% of the world's energy. "Fossil fuels are readily available, so the world will not give up their benefits without equal or better alternatives." Because of this conundrum, we are near a point of no return, where extreme consequences can spiral out of humanity's control.

Dr. Hansen has been a first-hand witness to humanity's failure to act over the last 35 years or so and his exasperation with that and his desperation to communicate to those in power about our increasingly limited options is abundantly clear. He's been advising governments around the world on possible approaches with little of the urgent response that is warranted. He delves into some of these details but then finally hones on in the three actions that are required to successfully address climate and achieve the bright future we desire for our children.

The first is a near-global carbon tax or fee. It is the sine qua non required to address the "tragedy of the commons" problem" wherein fossil fuels waste products can be dumpted in the atmosphere for free. There can be a range of approaches, yet something that penalizes those dumping GHGs is required to be enacted globally. A corollary to a carbon fee is a "clean energy portfolio standard," with government policies that are far more supportive of nuclear power.

The second major policy requirement, is the need for the West to cooperate with and support the clean energy needs of emerging and developing nations. There are economic imbalances with developed nations having caused the past emissions but emerging nations increasingly being the driver of future emissions:

The clear need is to replace the world’s huge fossil fuel energy system with clean energies,
which likely would include a combination of “renewables” and nuclear power. Even if the
renewables provide most of the energy, engineering and economic analyses indicate that
global nuclear power probably needs to increase by a factor of 2-4 to provide baseload power
to complement intermittent renewable energy, especially given growing demands of China,
India and other emerging economies. The scale of China’s energy needs makes it feasible to drive down the costs of renewables and nuclear power below the cost of fossil fuels.

Lastly, Dr. Hansen proposes that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."

References:

"A Miracle Will Occur" is Not Sensible Climate Policy, by James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Columbia University, Earth Insitute's Climate Science & Solutions, December 7, 2023.

Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Newsletter, "Groundhog Day. Another Gobsmackingly Bananas Month. What’s Up?, sent on January 4, 2024 from the same team.

"Dire Warnings from Dr. Hansen and Team, by Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital, Dec. 22, 2023.